For some, allure of socialism is powerful

Published: Friday, March 2, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, March 1, 2012 at 5:20 p.m.

One of the speakers at an Occupy Oakland rally in January, Roxanne Ortiz had this to say: "Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world. … Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich."

Facts

Fogle welcomes your comments at fogle222@bellsouth.net

This was not some weirdo who showed up in the crowd carrying a sign; this was an invited speaker standing at the podium. Although there have been many feeble attempts to compare the Occupy movement to the tea party, this event should put that comparison to rest for good.

While we can acknowledge that many of the participants in the Occupy rallies are decent folks who seek to change the government by lawful means, the usual gaggle of anarchists, socialists and left-wing misfits are lurking in the shadows. And it is abundantly clear that major financing of these groups comes from people who favor socialism, or at least socialism-lite.

The Occupiers would be advised to revisit history. Many of the initial agitators in the French Revolution ultimately faced the guillotine and many of the instigators of the Bolshevik Revolution ended up in gulags or in front of firing squads. Survival of the fittest does not apply during anarchy; instead, the operative catchphrase is survival of the most vicious.

One need not go back that far in history, though. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is providing a live demonstration of the effects of government central planning and socialism.

When Chavez started Venezuela's road to oblivion 10 years ago, one of the first shortages was milk. If you have ever spent any time near an operating dairy, you probably know why.

You have to milk cows twice a day, in sickness and in health, rain or shine, seven days a week. If one is guaranteed an income without regard to the quality of one's work (socialism), then typical humans will elect to skip a milking now and then. And that reduces the cows' ability to produce milk.

Yet, the allure of socialism is powerful. Almost everyone wishes that humans were able to share the wealth and live peacefully. There may be enough resources on the planet for everyone to live comfortably if we worked just as hard and shared equally.

Alas, for some, that allure is so strong that they falsely believe people would work just as hard. But socialism violates a basic law of human nature, viz., humans will not labor anonymously for the good of the community. Humans require motivation to entice them to work — that's why it's called work — and that's why we get paid for it. Remove the motivation by paying everyone equally and the quality of work declines, and less production leads to starvation. Compare, for example, the starvation that goes on in North Korea to the affluence of South Korea.

While I believe big-government central planning inevitably leads to poverty, Mark Levin's latest book, "Ameritopia," makes the case that it leads to iron-fisted tyranny. Both are true. "Ameritopia" is a very good read; it traces the utopian desire for a "benevolent dictator" — or a small group of elites who function as dictators — from Plato, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx. The opinion of those men is that utopia can be achieved with an all-powerful central government that keeps the peasants (that's you and me) in our place.

Levin then moves on to John Locke, the source of much of the philosophy that influenced the Founders of our country, including this quote: "For he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary."

I highly recommend Levin's book, "Ameritopia." There is no utopia in the real world.

<p>One of the speakers at an Occupy Oakland rally in January, Roxanne Ortiz had this to say: "Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world. … Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich."</p><p>This was not some weirdo who showed up in the crowd carrying a sign; this was an invited speaker standing at the podium. Although there have been many feeble attempts to compare the Occupy movement to the tea party, this event should put that comparison to rest for good.</p><p>While we can acknowledge that many of the participants in the Occupy rallies are decent folks who seek to change the government by lawful means, the usual gaggle of anarchists, socialists and left-wing misfits are lurking in the shadows. And it is abundantly clear that major financing of these groups comes from people who favor socialism, or at least socialism-lite.</p><p>The Occupiers would be advised to revisit history. Many of the initial agitators in the French Revolution ultimately faced the guillotine and many of the instigators of the Bolshevik Revolution ended up in gulags or in front of firing squads. Survival of the fittest does not apply during anarchy; instead, the operative catchphrase is survival of the most vicious.</p><p>One need not go back that far in history, though. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is providing a live demonstration of the effects of government central planning and socialism.</p><p>When Chavez started Venezuela's road to oblivion 10 years ago, one of the first shortages was milk. If you have ever spent any time near an operating dairy, you probably know why. </p><p>You have to milk cows twice a day, in sickness and in health, rain or shine, seven days a week. If one is guaranteed an income without regard to the quality of one's work (socialism), then typical humans will elect to skip a milking now and then. And that reduces the cows' ability to produce milk.</p><p>Yet, the allure of socialism is powerful. Almost everyone wishes that humans were able to share the wealth and live peacefully. There may be enough resources on the planet for everyone to live comfortably if we worked just as hard and shared equally.</p><p>Alas, for some, that allure is so strong that they falsely believe people would work just as hard. But socialism violates a basic law of human nature, viz., humans will not labor anonymously for the good of the community. Humans require motivation to entice them to work — that's why it's called work — and that's why we get paid for it. Remove the motivation by paying everyone equally and the quality of work declines, and less production leads to starvation. Compare, for example, the starvation that goes on in North Korea to the affluence of South Korea.</p><p>While I believe big-government central planning inevitably leads to poverty, Mark Levin's latest book, "Ameritopia," makes the case that it leads to iron-fisted tyranny. Both are true. "Ameritopia" is a very good read; it traces the utopian desire for a "benevolent dictator" — or a small group of elites who function as dictators — from Plato, Thomas More, Thomas Hobbes and Karl Marx. The opinion of those men is that utopia can be achieved with an all-powerful central government that keeps the peasants (that's you and me) in our place.</p><p>Levin then moves on to John Locke, the source of much of the philosophy that influenced the Founders of our country, including this quote: "For he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary."</p><p>I highly recommend Levin's book, "Ameritopia." There is no utopia in the real world.</p><p>John Fogle welcomes your comments at fogle222@bellsouth.net.</p>